Do you agree that the Council has identified all reasonable options for the location of new employment land?

Object

Representation ID: 2289

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: S Shanahan

Many people have left the area looking for jobs with the demise of AP, Fords, Wolseley, IBM. Commercial buildings remain empty.

Object

Representation ID: 2301

Received: 21/07/2009

Respondent: S B Hoyles

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2311

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: M Wiles

Many people have left the area looking for jobs with the demise of AP, Fords, Wolseley, IBM. Commercial buildings remain empty.

Object

Representation ID: 2383

Received: 04/09/2009

Respondent: Roy Standley

No.

Object

Representation ID: 2420

Received: 08/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Connolly

No.

Object

Representation ID: 2474

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Mr G.C. Allman

No I do not. Seems to me that they have listened to a developer who has their eyes on an easy to develop green field site rather than considering numerous empty brown field sites (Ryton, Ford etc.) that would be more suitable - if there is even the demand for new employment land - which is debatable at the moment!

Support

Representation ID: 2521

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Terence Kemp

Agree

Object

Representation ID: 2547

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mr R.A and Mrs B.E Donaldson

Number of people: 2

KENILWORTH Industrial/retail units already empty in Kenilworth. Focus should be to attract new investment to these premises before building more.

Object

Representation ID: 2606

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: John Arnold

Do not agree with Thickthorn as it will severly impact on glasshouse lane residents (traffic etc).

Support

Representation ID: 2666

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Devitt

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 2729

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Pauline Neale

Land in Warwick should not be set aside to meet Coventry's needs. Why designate former industrial sites for housing e.g. Former Fords Factory and Station Approach Leamington they are low lying and could be subject to flooding.

Object

Representation ID: 2783

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Sheila F. Hadfield

This is not reasonable at either Thickthorn or Finham.

Object

Representation ID: 2825

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Robert Butcher

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2864

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Susan Butcher

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2920

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council

This council believes that the WDC has identified appropriate locations with the serious exceptions that Lower Heathcote/south of Harbury Lane should be retained as an area of restraint to preserve valuable agricultural land and respect the natural boundary to development provided by Harbury Lane.

This council also believes that the area at Finham/south of Coventry should be used to accommodate WDC's allocation of employment land rather than being yielded to Coventry for its needs.

Object

Representation ID: 2968

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs and Mr J Parr and Cotterill

Can't some one see that we ( England as a whole) and Coventry area in particular has lost virtually all of its manufacturing industry plus the skills that go with them.

Object

Representation ID: 3025

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Rhyan Barry

The council should be in negotiations with the owners of any vacant buildings to ensure the maximum use of existing sites before looking at destroying green belt. There may as well be no such expression if it means so little.

Support

Representation ID: 3071

Received: 17/09/2000

Respondent: Mr Anthony Morris

EXCEPT for area south of Harbury Lane in the Parish of Bishops Tachbrook.

Object

Representation ID: 3135

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mr R.C Hadfield

To a limited extend only as Kenilworth is largely a dormitory town. No need therefore at Thickthorn and Finham.

Comment

Representation ID: 3140

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: John Murphy

WDC has identified appropriate locations with the serious exceptions that Lower Heathcote/south of Harbury Lane MUST be retained as an area of restraint to preserve valuable agricultural land and respect the natural boundary to development provided by Harbury Lane.
We also believe that the area at Finham/south of Coventry should be used to accommodate WDC's allocation of employment land rather than being yielded to Coventry for its needs.

Support

Representation ID: 3194

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Robert Burtonshaw

No building on North Leamington Allotments

Object

Representation ID: 3255

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Mr David John Bowers

Sites that have already been built are not being used, many are empty. Why the need to build more?

Support

Representation ID: 3307

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Caroline Martin

Support

Support

Representation ID: 3340

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Christopher Gibb

Support

Support

Representation ID: 3355

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Christopher Gibb

Support

Support

Representation ID: 3381

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs M Kane

Support

Object

Representation ID: 3429

Received: 04/09/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs J Morby

Employment land not needed as vacant premises in Leamington area to meet any demand

Support

Representation ID: 3438

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mr P Dimanbro

Support

Object

Representation ID: 3471

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs E. Appleby

King's Hill is not suitable.

Object

Representation ID: 3509

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Owen

Object